That guess is a reach : one needs to check on their use(s)
of “loop” (“noose” was once used for fixed eye knots by some
climbing folks!). And by “overhand knot” one might think …
but no overhands were involved in this Hensel&Gretel entry!
(Various incarnations of the Crabber’s Eye Knot occur, but
mostly sans hint of the supposed set-into-fixed-eye business.)
And the plate is at p.65 --my oops.
ps : In another fascinating entry, H&G clearly copy --nearly
verbatim-- the L.L.Haslope Work periodical words (or repeated
in P.N. Hasluck’s book) that specify & label standing part & end;
but H&G get that backwards, and reverse a crossing.
pps : I’d considered going through H&G to note what knots
aren’t presented by Ashley; but there is just SO much damn
rubbish in H&G that it’s pointless --of COURSE they’re not
in ABoK, and they shouldn’t be in any book … !
(And I’ve no fancy for discerning & counting decorative tangles.)
In retreat, I might build some list of things in H&G-land
that are worth noting --such as the “Twist BWL” which
found recent appearance in “in-a-bight” form as the
“Karash Loop”.
Going back to testing the Ossa vs the Gnat: another proof that spending time testing can teach one more than thinking of what is supposed to be tested.
It looks like the seemingly slight difference in the initial dressing of the Gnat may have quite an influence on its untiability. The pictures below show two different initial dressings of the Gnat and the same dressings cinched after being loaded.
The difference in dressing is quite slight and involves pushing/spreading the legs (or letting the knot arrange itself this way) of the outer loop (‘bent ear’) towards the rest of the knot (as in dressing B - some 45 degrees spread each way compared to dressing A and no other changes), which actually makes the knot a little tighter - just like dressing should… The Standing Part goes straight through the knot in both cases.
Under the (relatively moderate) loads that I applied, the Gnat may not rearrange itself into some common denominator (but it arguably could under higher loads) and may retain the initial knot dressing arrangement, retaining the outside ‘bent ear’ (dressing A), which makes it, in turn, easier to untie after being stressed.
I prefer dressing “A”, and show it on my website, but occasionally, under special conditions, I have seen the knot form migrate over time to dressing “B”, which, if the knot had been highly strained, makes you have to employ different untying strategies regarding which part of rope needs to move first.
I have also seen many times dressing “A” stay happily in position after much long-term use. Then, bending the standing part is usually an easy way to part the knot after use.
I’m guessing that low-friction conditions may allow shifting, but I haven’t looked into the issue exhaustively. I would guess that line stiffness may also play a role.
It’s a big thing because the Gnat dressed as ‘A’ (and able to maintain this dressing after being stressed) can be untied in under 30 s (as you reported). Dressing B, intentional or otherwise, jams much more and requires at least a few minutes to do the same, if at all.
I like the hitch with the tail tucked out on the other
side of the SPart --between it and the crossing point
of the HH/loop.
Or, one can keep the Gnat tuck spot but en route
to that take the tail around the other way around
the SPart, and so it will cross itself just prior to
tucking out --this will also narrow/tighten its
collaring and better keep it from folding around
the rest of the hitch.
There is an easy online way to crop and resize images below the 100 kB limit of this forum if you don’t want to fiddle too much with them: https://resizefile.com/resize-image-by-kb.html
Providing I deciphered those hitch variants geometries right, is there anything that you would like to add? Uses? Have you tested them in any meaningful way, for jamming for instance, or are they geometric concepts for now?
And yours is :: you show the HH/loop formed
going around anti-clockwise towards end,
and tail is brought out around 11:00 and the
down behind the SPart at about 7:00 to emerge
on the right side and tuck down through on the
RIGHT side of SPart ;
rather --for mine–, tuck it down & out on the LEFT,
which of course brings the collar legs closer together.
And, alternative #2, bring tail out from that 11:00
point to cross parts to go down around behind the
SPart from right side to left,
then up & over to the GNat’s tuck-out --which puts
a sort of “closed bight” collar in place,
and again should give something not able to deform
down around the hitch body.
That a slipped knot might jam seems something regularly,
one might say “de rigueur” occurs in book descriptions of
the Constrictor –which (d.r.) has to be cut otherwise,
because it binds sooo well. The slip-bight is extra hard
to pull out if the rope doesn’t want to bend sooo tightly,
such as much kernmantle rope doesn’t --esp. low-elongation stuff.
Beyond the knotting variations of the hitch part,
one might put in a round turn to see how much
force that takes away from the (same) hitch.
NB, by one of the (unspecified, naturally --it's H&G!) loadings
of EKFR ("Hensel & Gretel"), #51, pl.25, p.64 (left end loading)
is just this : Gnat H. ; other end, the better? Eskimo BWL.
Well, the question is nailed directly at H&G p.70-pl.28#87
–“Crossed Running Knot” IIRC.
(and a further hint at 65-25#51, possibly)
H&G touch on various formations of what COULD be
some version of “Crabber’s Eye Knot” --some noose-ish
construction where the knot “runs” BUT THEN can be
tightened sharply to set it as a pretty well fixed eye knot.
Interestingly, (again IIRC) H&G don’t give even a hint
of this fixing of the knot --just its running.
(But H&G are just … appallingly uninformative most of
the time --it is really amazing that the book survived into
multiple editions and printings :: says a LOT about knot
tyers, I’m afraid <guilty!> !!)
